Taxing unhealthy products

[bhsmte]

I am presuming that not all patients possess the same preferred outcome than those providers.

Patients go to medical providers to get care. Medical providers provide that care, based on each person's medical condition and they set out a plan of care. Do you have other reasons people seek medical care?

 

[ananda]

Patients go to medical providers to get care. Medical providers provide that care, based on each person's medical condition and they set out a plan of care. Do you have other reasons people seek medical care?

In context of taxation, private wealth is being confiscated to fund choices (such as medical) that may not agree with the personal perspective of those who are taxed.

 

[bhsmte]

In context of taxation, private wealth is being confiscated to fund choices (such as medical) that may not agree with the personal perspective of those who are taxed.

If everything was taxed based on each person's preferences, we wouldn't have roads, schools, fire departments, etc. etc..

If you don't like being taxed, you live in the wrong country. Come to think of it, I can't think of an advanced society, that doesn't tax, so good luck.

 

[ananda]

If everything was taxed based on each person's preferences, we wouldn't have roads, schools, fire departments, etc. etc..

If you don't like being taxed, you live in the wrong country. Come to think of it, I can't think of an advanced society, that doesn't tax, so good luck.

We've debated this before.

 

[bhsmte]

We've debated this before.

Yep, good luck.

 

[ananda]

Yep, good luck.

You too.

 

[bhsmte]

You too.

Thanks.

 

[Zoii]

I am aware that correlation is not proof of causation but since there is a correlation between the growth of the nanny state and the increase in obesity just summarily dismissing any possible link is somewhat unreasonable.

As for people being unable to do what one o r one's government wants them to do, perhaps the reason is not inability but unwillingness? Others may actually have decided that what one thinks they ought to do carries less weight in their mind than what they themselves think they want themselves to do. Some people seem to be under the impression that those that have the same ideas about what constitutes an unhealthy food as they do have the right to impose their will upon others that do not share those ideas by using the aggressive coercive force of government. I would think that rather than becoming dictatorial and using the coercive force of government through taxation( which IMO for the government is probably the ends and claiming to be concerned with health the means to achieve that ends) when unable to convince others by proclaiming one's absolute correctness or by emotional appeal, one might try to use reasonable argument ( which is not in any way telling people to consult the proclamations and emotional appeals of those that are like minded to oneself like the UN or Google) to convince them by proof positive that the position one is tal= king is not only reasonable but has been well thought out rather than simply taken on faith from an authority figure. After all, one person's authority figure may not be as esteemed by someone else and not be deemed worthy of that sort of trusting naivety. . If one cannot make the case oneself then one's proclamations have no credibility and are in no way convincing.

All that is fine - so if you dont want the government to help, then PAY YOUR WAY and stop expecting me and others who are a healthy weight to subsidize your obesity. You dont want intervention..then fine youre overweight so you should pay more for your plane ticket, your insurance and since your a greater risk of being sick or injured at work then I should have a job ahead of you. If you dont want a government leveler then pay your way and stop bleeding off others.

Now I can hear you go - oh that's harsh - yet somehow suggesting that the government shouldn't try to level things IS harsh.

You just want it both ways...you want people to pay your way and you do nothing for yourself [when I say yourself Im not meaning you personally btw]

 

[grasping the after wind]

All that is fine - so if you dont want the government to help, then PAY YOUR WAY and stop expecting me and others who are a healthy weight to subsidize your obesity. You dont want intervention..then fine youre overweight so you should pay more for your plane ticket, your insurance and since your a greater risk of being sick or injured at work then I should have a job ahead of you. If you dont want a government leveler then pay your way and stop bleeding off others.

Now I can hear you go - oh that's harsh - yet somehow suggesting that the government shouldn't try to level things IS harsh.

You just want it both ways...you want people to pay your way and you do nothing for yourself [when I say yourself Im not meaning you personally btw]

If you are finished arguing with the strawman perhaps you could discuss the issue with me. I not only have no problem with people being held personally responsible for their own self inflicted problems, I would welcome it. The government becoming an either enabler of poor decision makers or punishing good decision makers in order to enable others to escape responsibility for their poor decisions is not my cup of tea.

 

[Zoii]

If you are finished arguing with the strawman perhaps you could discuss the issue with me. I not only have no problem with people being held personally responsible for their own self inflicted problems, I would welcome it. The government becoming an either enabler of poor decision makers or punishing good decision makers in order to enable others to escape responsibility for their poor decisions is not my cup of tea.

I actually dont know what strawman means

However..... the OP was highlighting a method used in in Norway - and its been replicated in other places as well. But not very widely because I guess politicians feel as you do - ie that this wouldn't be popular. So as you suggest its unlikely to go anywhere this concept.

But Im also pretty sure the obesity rate in your country will rise dramatically..... unlike the areas where this method of controlling societal obesity has been used.

I also have an objection to the continual funding of major fast-food companies.... Most countries have stopped giving major tax breaks to tobacco companies. Thats not the case for fastfood/energy dense food producers.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I actually dont know what strawman means

Straw man
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the logical fallacy. For other uses, see Straw man (disambiguation).
"Man of straw" redirects here. For the novel by Heinrich Mann, see Der Untertan.
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.[2][3]

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or an understanding of both sides of the issue.

Allegedly, straw man tactics were once known in some parts of the United Kingdom as an Aunt Sally, after a pub game of the same name where patrons threw sticks or battens at a post to knock off a skittle balanced on top.[4][5]

 

[grasping the after wind]

However..... the OP was highlighting a method used in in Norway - and its been replicated in other places as well. But not very widely because I guess politicians feel as you do - ie that this wouldn't be popular. So as you suggest its unlikely to go anywhere this concept.

As I have not suggested my reason for opposing such taxes has anything to do with their potential popularity. This is argument is addressed to a straw man. As the are next few to which I was referring in the earlier post.

stop expecting me and others who are a healthy weight to subsidize your obesity.

I did not argue that anyone should pay to subsidize anyone else's obesity. Instead my argument was and is that people have a God given right to be obese as long as they are willing to pay for the causes and the consequences of that choice. Therefore the argument you used in rebuttal to mine was a straw man argument.

If you dont want a government leveler then pay your way and stop bleeding off others.

Though I am opposed to government taxing people in order to attempt to control their behavior, I never once mentioned anything about opposing a leveler( something that would allow people an equal chance at success would be a leveler and I would not oppose such a thing on principle) and I did not argue that anyone ought to be able to bleed off others. My argument remains that the government ought not be allowed to appropriate the wealth of any citizen for the express purpose of giving it to another citizen. Again the argument you attempt to refute is not mine but that of the straw man you created.

Now I can hear you go - oh that's harsh - yet somehow suggesting that the government shouldn't try to level things IS harsh.

Here you are hearing the voice of the straw man as I do not think there is anything harsh in governments not attempting to control the personal eating habits of their citizens nor of government not paying for the consequences of such habits. I would extend this to include other purely personal behaviors that I think government has no business being involved in. Again i do not see government interfering in people's choice of food as any kind of a leveler. What exactly is supposed to be leveled buy government taxing any particular food? Seems instead to be making things unequal rather than more equal.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I also have an objection to the continual funding of major fast-food companies.... Most countries have stopped giving major tax breaks to tobacco companies. Thats not the case for fastfood/energy dense food producers.

I am against all government subsidies and tax breaks to private entities. The US government directly subsidizes and gives specific tax breaks for many large companies including producers of meat, dairy products, produce, wind power , solar power, electric vehicles and many more but I am unaware of any such direct subsidies to or even tax breaks specifically for KFC, McDonalds, Burger King, etc.. My being unaware would not preclude their existence but, much like an atheist, I would have to be shown they exist in order for me to believe in them.

 

[Zoii]

I am against all government subsidies and tax breaks to private entities. The US government directly subsidizes and gives specific tax breaks for many large companies including producers of meat, dairy products, produce, wind power , solar power, electric vehicles and many more but I am unaware of any such direct subsidies to or even tax breaks specifically for KFC, McDonalds, Burger King, etc.. My being unaware would not preclude their existence but, much like an atheist, I would have to be shown they exist in order for me to believe in them.

I understand your point and probably thats how many would feel and like I said before, a energy dense food tax is unlikely to get traction with politicians who too frequently base policy on whether it will be popular with constituents. I can only re-state that where this has been trialled it has been very effective at reducing obesity rates.

Our problem then is, if theres to be Zero government intervention, then will equalization be removed {equalization = costs of a service are the same for all purchasers regardless of risk by an individual purchaser so that a person of low risk ends up subsidizing the person of high risk}... that too is unlikely to get political traction and so - unfortunately - obesity rates will continue to soar along with the complication rates and economic burden.

Lastly you referred to tax breaks of fast food companies - so for example when a company advertises its product they get a tax deduction. So a fast food outlet advertises, get a tax benefit for it, and its product imposes a burden back onto society.